SPECIAL EXAMINATION

1.(a) What is a confession? To be admissible what are the requirements?

(b) What is a custodial investigation? When is a person considered to be under custodial investigation? What are the rights due to a person under custodial investigation? If these rights are violated, what are the consequences?

2.On August 14, 1987, between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m., the appellant and his common-law wife, Shirley Reyes, went to the booth of the "Manila Packing and Export Forwarders" in the Pistang Pilipino Complex, Ermita, Manila, carrying with them four (4) gift wrapped packages. Anita Reyes (the proprietress and no relation to Shirley Reyes) attended to them. The appellant informed Anita Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend in Zurich, Switzerland. Appellant filled up the contract necessary for the transaction, writing therein his name, passport number, the date of shipment and the name and address of the consignee, namely, "WALTER FIERZ, Mattacketr II, 8052 Zurich, Switzerland"

Anita Reyes then asked the appellant if she could examine and inspect the packages. Appellant, however, refused, assuring her that the packages simply contained books, cigars, and gloves and were gifts to his friend in Zurich. In view of appellant's representation, Anita Reyes no longer insisted on inspecting the packages. The four (4) packages were then placed inside a brown corrugated box one by two feet in size (1' x 2'). Styro-foam was placed at the bottom and on top of the packages before the box was sealed with masking tape, thus making the box ready for shipment .

Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes (proprietor) and husband of Anita (Reyes), following standard operating procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened appellant's box, a peculiar odor emitted therefrom. His curiosity aroused, he squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside. Opening one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding from the opening of one of the gloves. He made an opening on one of the cellophane wrappers and took several grams of the contents thereof .

Job Reyes forthwith prepared a letter reporting the shipment to the NBI and requesting a laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the cellophane wrapper.

He brought the letter and a sample of appellant's shipment to the Narcotics Section of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), at about 1:30 o'clock in the afternoon of that date, i.e., August 14, 1987. He was interviewed by the Chief of Narcotics Section. Job Reyes informed the NBI that the rest of the shipment was still in his office. Therefore, Job Reyes and three (3) NBI agents, and a photographer, went to the Reyes' office at Ermita, Manila .

Job Reyes brought out the box in which appellant's packages were placed and, in the presence of the NBI agents, opened the top flaps, removed the styro-foam and took out the cellophane wrappers from inside the gloves. Dried marijuana leaves were found to have been contained inside the cellophane wrappers .

The package which allegedly contained books was likewise opened by Job Reyes. He discovered that the package contained bricks or cake-like dried marijuana leaves. The package which allegedly contained tabacalera cigars was also opened. It turned out that dried marijuana leaves were neatly stocked underneath the cigars.

The NBI agents made an inventory and took charge of the box and of the contents thereof, after signing a "Receipt" acknowledging custody of the said effects. A criminal case was filed against the sender of the box. During the trial, the box and the marijuana were presented as evidence. The accused objects, saying that said pieces of evidence is not admissible against her as it was obtained without a search warrant. Decide.

3.A robbery just occurred. Mr. X was arrested and was put in a police line up where he was pointed at by Ms X as the one who robbed her in his house that evening. Mr. X was identified by Ms. X. During the trial, Mr. X cried foul saying that when he was arrested and made to stand in the police line up, his Miranda rights were violated. He was not informed of his right to remain silent, he was not assisted by counsel etc. Decide whether Mr. X was correct in his contention.

4.In the Regional Trial Court case for homicide, accused was granted bail for P100,000 by the trial court judge. After trial the accused was convicted and was sentenced to an imprisonment of 12 years maximum. The judge cancelled his bail and ordered for his imprisonment. Meanwhile the accused filed an appeal, which the court gave due course. The accused prays that his bail be continued while pending appeal. If you were the judge would you grant the same? Explain.

5.The general rule is that the right to bail applies to “all” criminally charged of crimes. What is the exception to this general rule? Explain.